Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Crime and Justice in Contemporary Japan pp 189–214Cite as

Sentencing and Punishment in Japan and England: A Comparative Discussion

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 928 Accesses

Abstract

This is a discussion on sentencing and punishment. We compare England and Wales, as a jurisdiction allowing indefinite imprisonment without chance of parole, with Japan, as a jurisdiction retaining the death penalty. We first provide an overview on penal policy, public opinion, and the legal institutions of sentencing and then examine the aims of prevention, consistency, efficiency, lay participation, retribution, and the protection of the human rights of offenders. We do so by combining the perspectives of a former judge, barrister, and criminologist from England, a professor of criminal law from Japan, and a multilingual comparatist working in both jurisdictions. This not only addresses an astonishing lack of comparative scholarship on the criminal justice systems of England and Japan. We also highlight parallel trends in both sentencing regimes and introduce four recent Japanese reforms: (1) increased punitiveness, by maximum tariffs raised in 2004; (2) increased consistency, through a sentencing database introduced in 2008; (3) problems of citizen participation, since lay judge trials commenced in 2009; and (4) focus on efficiency, by the introduction of plea bargaining in 2016.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    On these questions, cf. already Walker and Padfield (1999), and the edited volume by Tonry (2010); for Japan, cf. e.g. the special journal issue by Akaike (2012).

  2. 2.

    Relevant legislation is listed in Ashworth (2015, at 20–22); for a recent critique, cf. Roberts and Ashworth (2016).

  3. 3.

    On the guidelines, see Roberts (2013); for a multitude of perspectives, including comparative approaches, see the edited volume by Ashworth and Roberts (2013); including Padfield (2013); explanations to the Sentencing Council’s Guidelines to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in Japanese are provided by Ido (2007). All offence-specific and the generic guidelines are available from the websites of the Sentencing Council (2016).

  4. 4.

    Act Concerning Participation of Lay Judges in Criminal Trials (Saiban-in no sanka suru keiji saiban ni kansuru hôritsu), Law No. 63/2004, as amended by Law No. 44/2009; English translation by Anderson and Saint (2005).

  5. 5.

    For a Japanese commentary on the general provisions on the six types of punishments (see Itô and Matsumiya, 2013).

  6. 6.

    Art 199 of the Penal Code; individual sentences will depend on circumstances relating to the person of the defendant and the criminal act itself, see recently Shiroshita (2015).

  7. 7.

    For a comparison of Japanese crime rates, which have declined by almost 50% after 2002, with the UK, see Miyazawa (2013); for the most recent figures, see inter alia Table 1-1-1-2, Hômu-sho Hômu sôgô kenkyû-jo (2015); for context on these statistics, particularly on the dark figures, see Finch (2000).

  8. 8.

    On the increase of the use and length of custodial sentences, cf., e.g. Ashworth (2015, at 5 and 10); on the questions surrounding the topic of ‘back-door sentencing’, see the contributions in Padfield (2012).

  9. 9.

    Cf. also Padfield (2014, 2016c).

  10. 10.

    For police recorded crime data, see Office for National Statistics (2016).

  11. 11.

    For the crime survey, see TNS RMBB and Office for National Statistics (2016).

  12. 12.

    On this trend in Japan, cf. Shiroshita (2009); Shiroshita (2005); on other punitive amendments, cf. Miyazawa (2008).

  13. 13.

    Act partially amending the Penal Code (Keihô no ichibu o kaisei suru hôritsu), Law No. 156/2004; for an overview of the old and new statutory sentences, see Shiroshita (2010, at 244).

  14. 14.

    Act partially amending the Penal Code (Keihô no ichibu o kaisei suru hôritsu), Law No. 57/2007.

  15. 15.

    On the question of deterrence by capital punishment, see comparatively Hood and Hoyle (2015, pp. 317–349), on the contestations of capital punishment in Asia at 84–102, particularly on Japan at 94–95, 148, 173, and 260.

  16. 16.

    Padfield (2005, 2010).

  17. 17.

    For an empirical comparison of the sentences handed down by juries today versus those of professional judges before, see Saikô saiban-sho jimu sôkyoku [General Secretariat, Supreme Court] (2012).

  18. 18.

    For a holistic, critical examination of judicial decision-making in such cases, see Burns (2005); for a recent overview of the sentences handed down between 2009 and February 2016, cf. Suzuki (2016).

  19. 19.

    For overviews on equality and difference in punishment, see Easton and Piper (2016, p. 386) and Ashworth (2015, pp. 250–271).

  20. 20.

    In contrast to other recent developments in Japan’s criminal justice system, the body of literature on Japanese lay judge trials in Western languages has grown rapidly. For a collection of references, cf. Levin and Mackie (2013). For the latest in-depth monographs in English, see, firstly, Vanoverbeke (2015), focussing on sociolegal and historical backgrounds, where the point is made that more than a trend towards more severe sentencing by lay judges, the concern by Japanese professional judges is that the norm established in the past has to be respected, which prevents departures from it (see 141, 173, and 189) and, secondly, Wilson, Fukurai, and Maruta (2015) arguing for an expansion into the civil law realm.

  21. 21.

    Cf. also Shiroshita (2010, pp. 243 and 246).

  22. 22.

    Thomas (1982–2016).

  23. 23.

    Banks (2016).

  24. 24.

    Padfield (2003, 2011).

  25. 25.

    Cf., e.g. Roberts (2011) and Jacobson and Hough (2011).

  26. 26.

    See the various degrees and combinations of elements of the crime of rape (gôkan-zai) in Arts. 177; 178; 178–182; 179; 181 I, II, III; 241; and 243 of the Penal Code.

  27. 27.

    See the various degrees and combinations of elements of the crime of arson (hôka-zai) in Arts. 108; 109 I and II; 110 I and II; 111 I and II; 112; 113; 114; 116; 117; and 117–122 of the Penal Code.

  28. 28.

    Halliday (2001).

  29. 29.

    Sentencing Council (2012).

  30. 30.

    For definitions of the three roles, a defendant can be held to have had in drug cases, and on the four categories relating to the quantity of illegal substances determining the harm done, cf., e.g. Padfield (2013, at 35–37).

  31. 31.

    Cain [2006] EWCA Crim. 3233, [2007] Crim. L.R. 310; James [2007] EWCA Crim. 1906.

  32. 32.

    The proposals are to be found in Hômu-sho hôsei shingi-kai tokubetsu bukai (2014)

  33. 33.

    Art 42 I of the Penal Code.

  34. 34.

    However, plea bargaining was eventually introduced for a limited range of offences. Under the framework of a significant readjustment of the penal process in Japan in May 2016, a plea bargaining system was introduced by the law partially amending the Code of Criminal Procedure, etc. (Keiji soshô-hô-tô no ichibu o kaisei suru hôritsu), Law No. 54/2016. Inter alia, it allows to offer defendants lighter sentences or dropped charges in cases of drug trafficking and certain white-collar crimes, e.g. bribery and tax evasion, in exchange for information not on the defendant but on others, such as accomplices and ringleaders. While critics already argue that such a reform will open doors to false accusations, a first overview in English is provided by Osaki (2016).

  35. 35.

    Newton [1982] 4 Cr. App. R.(S) 388; Underwood [2005] 1 Cr. App. R. 13.

  36. 36.

    On similar, unofficial practices in Japan, however, cf. Johnson (2002, pp. 246–248).

  37. 37.

    Cf. Article 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which draws on the principle of expediency with regard to the discretionary powers of the prosecution under German law of criminal procedure. With a comparison of Japan Rasmusen, Raghav, and Ramseyer (2009).

  38. 38.

    Calculated as 99.79% for ordinary trials in 2014, based on the absolute figures in Table 2-3-2-1 in Hômu-sho Hômu sôgô kenkyû-jo (2015, p. 47). On the methodological problems of calculating and comparing such rates, see Johnson (2002, p. 215); on possible explanations, see Ramseyer and Rasmusen (2001).

  39. 39.

    The 2014 prosecution rate is 34% (Hômu-sho Hômu sôgô kenkyû-jo, 2015, p 45, Table 2-2-3-1).

  40. 40.

    Depending on how you read the recent figures, compare Crown Prosecution Service (2016), with Dodd and Bengtsson (2016).

  41. 41.

    As Johnson (2002), summarizes at 63, prosecutors have more power over life, liberty, and reputation of suspects than anyone else in the Japanese justice system; on the prosecutors’ discretion at id. 104–118.

  42. 42.

    Cf. again, e.g. Thaman (2012, p. 242).

  43. 43.

    In England and Wales, the jury decides the facts and the judge decides the law. In summary, juries are used in criminal cases in the Crown Court (where defendants plead ‘not guilty’), in civil cases in the High Court and County Court (in cases involving defamation, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and fraud), and in Coroners’ Courts (to inquire into deaths occurring in prison, police custody, industrial accidents, and other cases with implications for public health and safety); the basic qualifications are laid out by the Juries Act 1974.

  44. 44.

    For an overview of the court and sentencing system in England and Wales, see, e.g. Ashworth (2015, at 1–7); on Japan, see, e.g. Oda (2011, pp. 57–65); and for the references on both jurisdictions, see note 6.

  45. 45.

    Padfield (2016a, 2016c).

  46. 46.

    Art 2 I of Lay Judges Act; cf. Shiroshita (2009, pp. 273–287); and the references in supra notes 8; 13.

  47. 47.

    Art 199 of the Penal Code. For translations of Japanese terms of criminal law, including substance control legislation, see the contributions to the edited volume by Okuda, Anderson, and Baum (2013). For an overview of the murder cases tried between 2010 and 2015, see Shiroshita (2015, pp. 128–129); and Ellis and Hamai (2017).

  48. 48.

    Art 240 of the Penal Code.

  49. 49.

    Art 181 II and III of the Penal Code.

  50. 50.

    Art 108 of the Penal Code.

  51. 51.

    Art 9 of Lay Judges Act.

  52. 52.

    The preceding paragraphs partly draw on Shiroshita (2010, p. 246).

  53. 53.

    Smith (1998).

  54. 54.

    For a recent sociological study on this in a Western language, see Vanoverbeke (2016).

  55. 55.

    Cf. Art 2 II of Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2000, bindingly in force since 2009; Art 2 I 2 of Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in force since 1953.

  56. 56.

    Art 11 I of the Penal Code; Art 71 of the Act Concerning Penal Detention of Detainees (Keiji shûyô shisetsu oyobi hi-shûyô-sha-tô no shogû ni kansuru hôritsu), Law No. 50/2005, as amended by Law No. 69/2014.

  57. 57.

    For the leading judgement on the standards for selecting capital punishment from 1983, see Supreme Court, Keishû 37, 609.

  58. 58.

    Art 11 II of the Penal Code does not set forth a maximum term of imprisonment before execution. In 2014, for example, prisoner Iwao Hakamada was released after a retrial and having spent 46 years on death row. For human rights relevant in this context in Japan, cf. Articles 13, 14, 31, 36, 37, and 38 of the Japanese Constitution (Nihon-koku kenpô), 1946; the overview by Oda (2011, pp. 105–107) and Iwasawa (1998).

  59. 59.

    Code of Criminal Procedure (Keiji soshô-hô), Law No. 131/1948, as amended by Law No. 54/2016; English definitions of its key terms are available in Okuda, Anderson, and Baum (2013).

  60. 60.

    Art 475 II Code of Criminal Procedure.

  61. 61.

    For human rights relevant in this context in England and Wales, cf. Articles 3, 5, 6, and 7 of European Convention of Human Rights 1950, as amended by Protocol Nos. 11 and 13, supplemented by Protocol Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12, and 13; the Human Rights Act 1998; the in-depth commentary by Emmerson, Ashworth, and Macdonald (2012); and recently van Zyl Smit, Weatherby, and Creighton (2014)

  62. 62.

    R v Oaks [2012] EWCA Crim. 2435; Attorney General’s Reference No. 69 of 2013 [2014] EWCA Crim. 188.

  63. 63.

    Cf., e.g. Vinter v UK (Grand Chamber, July 2013) and van Zyl Smit, Weatherby, and Creighton (2014); McLoughlin and Newell [2014] EWCA Crim. 188, [2014] Crim. L.R. 471; and most recently Hutchinson v UK, 17 January 2017.

  64. 64.

    As of December 2016, this number has grown to 60, while Japan’s death row population was at 129.

  65. 65.

    On clemency in Japan, see Art 13 of Pardon Act (Onsha-hô), Law No. 20/1947 as amended by Law No. 49/2013 and Arts 1, 1-2, 8, 10, and 11 of Pardon Act Enforcement Ordinance (Onsha-hô shikkô kisoku) No. 78/1947 as amended by Ordinance No. 59/2006; for English translation of both laws, as of 2009, see Ministry of Justice, Japanese Law Translation Database (2009). On the question of a human rights violation, see Death Penalty Project (2013).

  66. 66.

    On paroles in Japan, see Arts. 28–30 of the Penal Code.

  67. 67.

    Padfield (2016b) and Mitchell (2013).

  68. 68.

    Croydon is a borough of London.

  69. 69.

    Crewe, Liebling, Padfield, and Virgo (2015).

  70. 70.

    And read the case in which his conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal more than 45 years after his execution: Bentley [2001] 1 Cr. App. R. 21, [1999] Crim. L.R. 330.

  71. 71.

    On the role of the media in the UK, cf. Easton and Piper (2016, p. xv, 15–19); on Japan, cf. Ohba (2011); Ohba (2013).

  72. 72.

    Arguments against the death penalty in Japan include that it has no proven effect in relation to reducing heinous crimes; it is contradictory for a law prohibiting homicide to stipulate a punishment that deprives people of life; it constitutes cruel punishment prohibited under Article 36 of the Japanese Constitution; and it cannot be reversed in the event of a misjudgement. Supporters argue that abolition may result in an increase of heinous crimes; based on the principle of proportionality, it is the only suitable punishment for certain heinous crimes; Article 31 of the Constitution is premised on the existence of such punishment, which hence cannot be prohibited under Article 36; and other punishments, such as time spent in prison, also cannot be undone. For reform proposals, cf. already Sher (2011).

  73. 73.

    Easton and Piper (2016).

  74. 74.

    On victims’ procedural rights in Japan, see Matsui (2011) and Herber (2016).

  75. 75.

    Cf. Wood (2009), Gray (2009), Roberts and Hough (2011), and supra note 78.

  76. 76.

    Cf. the five purposes of punishment listed in Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 142. On the ‘cafeteria approach’, see Ashworth (1995, p. 331); this is not mentioned anymore in the current edition Ashworth (2015), but cf. the critical remarks at 42–53.

  77. 77.

    von Hirsch (1976, pp. 45–55); cf. also Hirsch and Ashworth (2005).

  78. 78.

    On England and Wales, see Easton and Piper (2016, pp. 17–19) and the references in supra note 81; on Japan, see Miyazawa (2007); for a recent study on Japanese punitive attitudes and public information, see Sato (2014).

References

  • Akaike, K. (Ed.). (2012). Hanzai shakai-gaku kenkyû. Kadai kenkyû keibatsu toshite no kôkin no imi o toikaesu [Japanese Journal of Sociological Criminology. Special Issue: Why Prison? Reconsidering the Imprisonment as a Punishment].

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, K., & Saint, E. (2005). Japan’s quasi-jury (saiban-in) law: An annotated translation of the Act concerning participation of lay assessors in criminal trials. Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal, 6, 233–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. (1995). Sentencing and criminal justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. (2005). Proportionate sentencing: Exploring the principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. (2015). Sentencing and criminal justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A., & Roberts, J. V. (2013). Sentencing guidelines: Exploring the English model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Banks, R. (2016). Banks on sentence (Vols. 1–2, 11th ed.). Etchingham: Robert Banks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, C. (2005). Sexual violence and the law in Japan. London/New York: RoutledgeCurzon.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crewe, B., Liebling, A., Padfield, N., & Virgo, G. (2015). Joint enterprise: The implications of an unfair and unclear law. Criminal Law Review, 4, 252–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crown Prosecution Service. (2016). Violence against women and girls (VAWG) crime report 2015–2016. Retrieved from Crown Prosecution Service website: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/cps_vawg_report_2016.pdf

  • Dammer, H. R., & Albanese, J. S. (2014). Comparative criminal justice systems. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dando, S. (1965). Japanese criminal procedure. South Hackensack, NJ: Fred B. Rothman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dando, S. (1997). The criminal law of Japan: The general part. Littleton, CO: Fred B. Rothman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Death Penalty Project. (2013). The death penalty in Japan: A report on Japan’s legal obligations under the international covenant on civil and political rights and an assessment of public attitudes to capital punishment. Retrieved from: http://www.deathpenaltyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/DPP-Japan-report.pdf

  • Dodd, V., & Bengtsson, H. (2016, October 13). Reported rapes in England and Wales double in four years. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/13/reported-rapes-in-england-and-wales-double-in-five-years

  • Easton, S., & Piper, C. (2016). Sentencing and punishment: The quest for justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, T., & Hamai, K. (2017). Homicide in Japan. In F. Brookman, E. R. Maguire, & M. Maguire (Eds.), The handbook of homicide (pp. 388–411). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Emmerson, B., Ashworth, A., & Macdonald, A. (2012). Human rights and criminal justice (3rd ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finch, A. (2000). Criminal statistics in Japan: The White Paper on Crime, Hanzai Hakusho and Hanzai Tôkeisho. Social Science Japan Journal, 3, 237–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. M. (2009). What shapes public opinion on the criminal justice system? In J. Wood & T. A. Gannon (Eds.), Public opinion and criminal justice (pp. 49–71). Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, J. (2001). Making punishments work: Report of a review of the sentencing framework for England and wales. Retrieved from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/halliday-report-sppu/chap-1-2-halliday2835.pdf?view=Binary

  • Herber, E. (2009). Japanese sentencing practices: Creating an opportunity for “formal” paternalism. International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, 2(2), 303–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herber, E. (2016). Victim participation in Japan: When therapeutic jurisprudence meets prosecutor justice. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 3(1), 135–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HM Prison Service. (2012). Life sentenced prisoners. Retrieved from: http://www.justice.gov.uk/offenders/types-of-offender/life

  • Hômu-sho Hômu Sôgô Kenkyû-jo [Legal Research Institute, Ministry of Justice]. (2015). Hanzai hakusho heisei 27-nen-ban (White Paper on Crime 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hômu-sho Hôsei Shingi-Kai Tokubetsu Bukai [Special Committee, Legislation Council, Ministry of Justice]. (2014). Arata na keiji shihô seido no kôchiku ni tsuite no chôsa shingi no kekka (an) – kaitei-ban [Revised edition – (Draft) Results of the Study and Deliberation about the Construction of a new Criminal Justice System]. Retrieved from http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000125864.pdf

  • Hood, R., & Hoyle, C. (2015). The death penalty: A worldwide perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ido, S. (2007). Igirisu no ryôkei gaidorain ni tsuite [About the English Sentencing Guidelines]. Hanrei Taimuzu, 1238, 67–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Itô, K., & Matsumiya, T. (Eds.). (2013). Shin konmentâru keihô [New Commentary on the Japanese Penal Code]. Tokyo: Nihon hyôron-sha.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iwasawa, Y. (1998). International law, human rights, and Japanese law: The impact of international law on Japanese law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, J., & Hough, M. (2011). Personal mitigation: An empirical analysis in England and Wales. In J. V. Roberts (Ed.), Mitigation and aggravation at sentencing (pp. 146–167). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, W. G. (Ed.). (2015). The encyclopedia of crime and punishment. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. T. (2002). The Japanese way of justice: Prosecuting crime in Japan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. T. (2008). Japanese punishment in comparative perspective. Hanzai shakai-gaku kenkyû [Japanese Journal of Sociological Criminology], 33, 46–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. P. A. (2016, February 8). Words about sentences: The Japanese vocab of crime and punishment. The Japan Times. Retrieved from http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2016/02/08/language/words-sentences-japanese-vocab-crime-punishment/

  • Keisatsu-Chô [National Police Agency]. (2016). Heisei 27-nenban hanzai hakusho (White Paper on Crime 2015). Retrieved from http://hakusyo1.moj.go.jp/jp/62/nfm/mokuji.html

  • Levin, M., & Mackie, A. (2013). Truth or consequences of the justice system reform council: An English language bibliography from Japan’s millennial legal reforms. Journal of Japanese Law, 35, 299–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, C., Brooks, G., Ellis, T., & Hamai, K. (2009). Comparing Japanese and English juvenile justice: Reflections on change in the twenty-first century. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 11(2), 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsui, S. (2011). Justice for the accused or justice for victims? The protection of victims’ rights in Japan. Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal, 13(1), 54–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice. (2009). Japanese law translation database. Penal Code. Retrieved from http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp

  • Mitchell, B. (2013). Sentencing guidelines for murder: From political schedule to principled guidelines. In A. Ashworth & J. V. Roberts (Eds.), Sentencing guidelines: Exploring the English model (pp. 52–70). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Miyazawa, S. (2007). The politics of increasing punitiveness and the rising populism in Japanese criminal justice policy. Punishment and Society, 10(1), 47–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyazawa, S. (2008). Will penal populism in Japan decline? A discussion. Hanzai shakai-gaku kenkyû [Japanese Journal of Sociological Criminology], 33, 122–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyazawa, S. (2013). Senshin-koku ni okeru hanzai hassei ritsu no jôkyô to nihon no jôkyô e no kokusai-teki kanshin [Crime Rates in Developed Countries and International Interest in Japan]. Hanzai shakai-gaku kenkyû [Japanese Journal of Sociological Criminology], 38, 7–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Audit Office. (2012). Comparing international criminal justice systems: Briefing for the house of commons justice committee. Retrieved from https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/NAO_Briefing_Comparing_International_Criminal_Justice.pdf

  • Oda, H. (2011). Japanese law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office for National Statistics. (2016). Crime and justice Retrieved from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice

  • Ohba, E. (2011). Nyûsu media ni okeru hanzai ni kansuru kenkyû dôkô: Hanzai nyûsu kenkyû no seika to kadai [Research Trends on Crime in News Media: Outcomes and Issues of Crime News Research]. Hanzai shakai-gaku kenkyû [Japanese Journal of Sociological Criminology], 36, 112–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohba, E. (2013). Hanzai nyûsu ni okeru hanzai no nami: Naze hanzai no genshô wa hitobito no wadai ni naranai no ka? [Crime Waves in Japanese News Media: Why is Declining Crime Not Newsworthy?]. Hanzai shakai-gaku kenkyû [Japanese Journal of Sociological Criminology], 38, 97–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okuda, Y., Anderson, K., & Baum, H. (Eds.). (2013). Glossary of Japanese criminal procedure in English, German, French and Spanish. Tokyo: Akashi Shoten.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osaki, T. (2016, May 24). Diet passes legislation to revamp Japan’s criminal justice system. The Japan Times. Retrieved from http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/05/24/national/diet-passes-legislation-revamp-japans-secretive-judicial-system/

  • Padfield, N. (2003). Sentencing fundamentals and the impact of Europe. Scottish Journal of Criminal Justice Studies, 9, 30–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padfield, N. (2005). Balancing rights in ‘delayed’ trials. Archbold News, 9, 7–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padfield, N. (2010). Discretion and decision-making in public protection. In M. Nash & A. Williams (Eds.), The handbook of public protection (pp. 103–131). Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padfield, N. (2011). Time to bury the custody threshold? Criminal Law Review, 8, 593–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padfield, N. (Ed.). (2012). Who to release? Parole, fairness and criminal justice. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padfield, N. (2013). Exploring the success of sentencing guidelines. In A. Ashworth & J. V. Roberts (Eds.), Sentencing guidelines: Exploring the English model (pp. 31–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Padfield, N. (2014). Front door and back door sentencing. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 1846–1855). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Padfield, N. (2016a). The English jury: Issues, concerns and future directions. In A. Kapardis & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), The psychology of crime, policing and the courts (pp. 188–199). London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padfield, N. (2016b). Justifying indeterminate detention—On what grounds? Criminal Law Review, 11, 795–820.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padfield, N. (2016c). Reflections on sentencing in England and Wales. In A. Kapardis & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), The psychology of crime, policing and the courts (pp. 231–257). London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pakes, F. (2012). Comparative criminology. In D. S. Clark (Ed.), Comparative law and society (pp. 61–76). Cheltenham/Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramseyer, M., & Rasmusen, E. (2001). Why is the Japanese conviction rate so high? Journal of Legal Studies, 30(1), 53–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmusen, E., Raghav, M., & Ramseyer, M. (2009). Convictions versus conviction rates: The prosecutor’s choice. American Law and Economics Review, 11(1), 47–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. V. (2011). Punishing, more or less: Exploring aggravation and mitigation at sentencing. In J. V. Roberts (Ed.), Mitigation and aggravation at sentencing (pp. 1–20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. V. (2013). Sentencing guidelines in England and Wales: Recent developments and emerging issues. Law and Contemporary Problems, 76(1), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. V., & Ashworth, A. (2016). The evolution of sentencing policy and practice in England and Wales, 2003–2015. Crime and Justice, 45, 307–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. V., & Hough, M. (2011). Exploring public attitudes to sentencing factors in England and Wales. In J. V. Roberts (Ed.), Mitigation and aggravation at sentencing (pp. 168–187). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Saikô Saiban-sho Jimu Sôkyoku [General Secretariat, Supreme Court]. (2012). Saiban-in saiban jisshi jôkyô no kenshô hôkoku-sho [Verification Report on the Status of the Implementation of Jury Trials]. Retrieved from http://www.saibanin.courts.go.jp/vcms_lf/hyousi_honbun.pdf

  • Sato, M. (2014). The death penalty in Japan: Will the public tolerate abolition? Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sentencing Council. (2012). Drug offenses definitive guideline 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sentencing Council. (2016). Retrieved from http://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/

  • Sher, E. M. (2011). Death penalty sentencing in Japan under the lay assessor system: Avoiding the avoidable through unanimity. Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal, 20(3), 635–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiroshita, Y. (2005). Raising the statutory penalty limits and legislative policy. Hanzai shakai-gaku kenkyû [Japanese Journal of Sociological Criminology], 30, 7–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiroshita, Y. (2009). Ryôkei riron no gendai-teki kadai [Recent Issues on Sentencing Theory]. Tokyo: Seibundô.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiroshita, Y. (2010). Current trends and issues in Japanese sentencing. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 22(4), 243–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiroshita, Y. (2015). Ryôkei handan ni okeru kô’i jijô to kô’i-sha jijô – shikei to muki no aida wo chûshin ni [Circumstances of the Offense and Circumstances of the Offender in Sentencing Judgments – Focussing on what lies ‘Between Death Penalty and Life Imprisonment’]. Kikan keiji bengo [Criminal Attorneys’ Quarterly], 83, 127–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, U. (2004). The punishment of serious crimes (Vols. 1–2). Freiburg im Breisgau: Edition iuscrim.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, U., Jarvers, K., & Silverman, E., (Eds.). (2013). National criminal law in a comparative legal context: Introduction to national systems (Vols. 1.1 and 1.3). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. C. (1998). Is ignorance bliss? Could jury trial survive investigation? Medicine, Science and the Law, 38, 98–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki, Y. E. (2016). Sexual violence in Japan: Implications of the lay judge system on victims of sexual violence. Journal of Law and Criminal Justice, 4(1), 75–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaman, S. C. (2012). Criminal courts and procedure. In D. S. Clark (Ed.), Comparative law and society (pp. 235–253). Cheltenham/Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. (1982–2009). Current sentencing practice. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • TNS RMBB, & Office for National Statistics. (2016). Crime in England and Wales: Year ending June 2016. Retrieved from http://www.crimesurvey.co.uk

  • Tonry, M. (Ed.). (2010). Why punish? How much? A reader on punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uga, K., Takahashi, S., & Ôhashi, Y. (Eds.). (2003). Taiwa de manabu gyôsei-hô – Gyôsei-hô to rinsetsu-hô bun’ya to no taiwa [Learning administrative law through dialogues – conversations between administrative law and adjacent areas of law]. Tokyo: Yûhikaku.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Zyl Smit, D., Weatherby, P., & Creighton, S. (2014). Whole life sentences and the tide of European human rights jurisprudence: What is to be done? Human Rights Law Review, 14, 59–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanoverbeke, D. (2015). Juries in the Japanese legal system: The continuing struggle for citizen participation and democracy. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanoverbeke, D. (2016). Le Juré Face au Juge: Une Analyse Socio-Juridique de la Domination aus sein du Jury Populaire. Japon Pluriel, 11, 47–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hirsch, A. (1976). Doing justice. New York: Hill and Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, N., & Padfield, N. (1999). Sentencing: Theory, law and practice. London: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. J., Fukurai, H., & Maruta, T. (2015). Japan and civil jury trials: The convergence of forces. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. (2009). Why public opinion of the criminal justice system is important. In J. Wood & T. A. Gannon (Eds.), Public opinion and criminal justice (pp. 33–47). Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Prison Brief & Birkbeck Institute for Criminal Policy Research. (2016). World prison brief data. Retrieved from http://www.prisonstudies.org

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Darwin College, the Judicial Association of Japan (Ippan Shadan Hôjin Shihô Kyôkai), the Templeton World Charity Foundation for research grants, and the Volkswagen Foundation’s ‘Key Issues for Research and Society’ initiative funding on the project ‘Protecting the Weak: Entangled Processes of Framing, Mobilization and Institutionalization in East Asia’ at the Interdisciplinary Centre for East Asian Studies, Frankfurt (AZ 87382). We thank Moritz Bälz and Fumihiko Sakamoto for comments on an early draft.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Julius Weitzdörfer

  2. Faculty of Law, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan

    Yuji Shiroshita

  3. Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Nicola Padfield

Authors
  1. Julius Weitzdörfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yuji Shiroshita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicola Padfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julius Weitzdörfer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Sciences, University of Macau, Taipa, Macau, China

    Jianhong Liu

  2. Hastings College of the Law, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA

    Setsuo Miyazawa

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Weitzdörfer, J., Shiroshita, Y., Padfield, N. (2018). Sentencing and Punishment in Japan and England: A Comparative Discussion. In: Liu, J., Miyazawa, S. (eds) Crime and Justice in Contemporary Japan. Springer Series on Asian Criminology and Criminal Justice Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69359-0_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69359-0_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69358-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69359-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation